Yes, Shearer was a pure "target man" type of #9 Puskas was like a complete forward = target man, decoy man, space and chance creating man ... His number sjould be like 9.5 or 9.75 * (close to true #10)
[This depends on if you're of the school of thought that splits the "target-playing" centre-forward and the traditional "W-M"-mould No.9 up as being two different types of striker (which I subscribe to): in most of the formations and in the era that he played in; Shearer would've usually lined-up as your "target"-type C-F. But, Shearer seemed to approach that position/role in more of the manner of a "throw-back", "W-M" No.9: he moved more across the width of the attack, he liked to turn on the pace to get on the end of through balls played to him "on the deck", etc., etc. Especially during the physical peak of his playing career: when he was still at Blackburn Rovers, for England during Euro '96, etc. ...]
Yes and no ... as it's always relative ... For example: - relatively compared to Inzaghi, or Crespo (traditional target #9 ) then Shearer was more of a CF #9 - Relatively compared to Ronaldo, Inbrahimovic or Eto'o ... then Shearer became more of a "target #9" of modern days ...
Look. Who the hell on here has seen Puskas playing??? You have to be 90!! Di Stefano!!! 80!!! Stop talking bollocks! Shearer, good up and under!!! english crap football!! Count the passes of any English team in their opponents half. Possibly 3 times 3 passes!! Dreadful rubbish!!!
[Here are some bios and info on one of the pioneers and positional models for the "W-M"-type No.9, Ted Drake (it's the reason why the position is also still called a "Drake-mould" centre-forward): http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/ARSENALdrake.htm http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/obituaryted-drake-1584467.html http://thechels.info/wiki/Ted_Drake http://www.goal.com/en/news/2274/go.../goalcoms-top-50-english-players-ted-drake-29 Once again, I hope that you find this information helpful...]
[Once again, thank you for your kind words, "Jim". I was lucky enough to see Drake in action; so if you happen to have any questions about what he was like as a player just LMK...]
[When I saw him at Helsinki '52 he would've been around twenty-five. In '53 @ Wembley he would've been a year older...]
[I forgot to add this before: Puskas would've been pretty hopeless as a "target-playing" C-F. It's one of the reasons why neither Honved or the Hungarian NT tried to utilise a "card-carrying" No.9 in that era, mate...]
I guess the same can be said about Kocsis, being him less movile than Puskas, maybe. btw, i'm interesting how Kocsis performed when playing with a striker, like Eulogio Martinez or Evaristo, for example.
it's a good point ... However to my knowledge, most players in older days (2 3 5 to WM formation) were much more mobile than let's say modern games - I am talking of the 3 front men both inside FW and center FW. I think Kociss would do fine there. He was a fine forward (much better than most FW in this era - bar Messi CR7) , but not quite up to same technical level of Puskas, Hidegkuti or Cziborg ...
Another Kocsis teammates as CF were Kubala and Tichy (last years in Honved), but i guess they played the D-L-C-F role (ala Hidegkuti). About other Honved CF (Babolcsay, Machos or Budai I) i don't know how their CF's role was, when performing the Honved's central trio of FWs with Kocsis-xx-Puskas.
Honved played more like 3 2 2 3 (WM reversed?) -Czibog ---------- Tichy --------L. Budai ----------Puskas--------Kocsis------------ --------- Banyai -------- Bozsik---------- ---L Rakoczi ---- Lorant ---- Dudas------
[I would say it was pretty clear that Kispest-Honved were utilising Ferenc Machos as a so-called "D-L C-F" when I saw him in action against Wolves @ Molineux back in '54...]
The Wolved v. Honved "not-so-friendly" newsreel from '54: An excellent match report from a Wolves fan site: http://www.thewolvessite.co.uk/1954honved.htm
Someone was kind enough to post scans of the official match programme for Wolves v. Honved in '54: http://footysphere.com/post/238325838/wolverhampton-wanderers-honved-1954 Both teams are incorrectly listed in the "pyramid formation" and there's a guide on how to pronounce Hungarian names. There's also a contemporary profile and a bit of a scouting report on Kocsis that some of you might find intriguing and informative...
The bdfutbol website has now penalty kicks added and complete. This helps in arriving to a better statistical analysis. Di Stefano scored 227 league goals in 329 games. That is a ratio of 0.69 Puskas scored 156 league goals in 180 games. That is a ratio of 0.87 Di Stefano had 15 penalty kick goals in his career, at the league. Di Stefano stopped taking penalty kicks after the 1958-59 season. Puskas had 21 penalty kicks goals in his career, at the league. It is also possible to look whether one would get a different top-scorer if penalty kicks are subtracted: Di Stefano would lose his shared title in 1957-58 if penalty kicks are subtracted from the totals. He would drop to fifth place. Puskas would lose his title in 1963-64 if penalty kicks are subtracted from the totals. He would lose it to Waldo. They would gain no 'extra' title.
Well it'll be only COMPLETE if the stats would show WHO won that pk ... It's not the same if Ronaldo 9 scored most pk earned by himself, than a Lampard who scored most pk off from some others!